Fareed Zakaria Suspended for Plagiarism

This. I'm appalled at the decline in standards, especially the zeal with which many have abandoned the value of objectivity (striving for it in news coverage, anyway). Lots of them will tell you, "That doesn't sell. That doesn't drive clicks." But it's also a lazy way to conduct "journalism," just spewing views or offering them once-removed from sources hand-picked because they share the same ones.

If you have been at this for any period of time, you know how the sausage is made. And you can spot slanting of coverage -- and catering to "brand name" media personalities in hiccup episodes like this, compared to how Joe Reporter would get crushed in a handy excuse for a layoff -- from miles away.

 

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/08/fareed-zakaria-to-stay-at-time-magazine-132350.html

 

How did they determine it as unintentional?

Did Zakaria even say that publicly?

 

Not like it matters, but I'm practically ready to cancel my Time subscription over this. This is the only explanation we're owed? Trust us?

 

Completely different considering the writers created pools (teleconferences and then file uploads) designed to share, and a note at the end of the columns indicated that the information was gathered from other writers and papers.

 

I'm with Old Tony. Pious SEs or higher-ups who tried to frame league notebooks as plagiarism, especially with the disclaimers attached at the bottom, were buffoons. It was a swift, low-cost, low-manpower way to get a national scope to coverage and if everyone was up-front about where the stuff came from, where was the harm?

While I'm completely on board with plagiarism as a journalistic crime -- and one that should be punished more harshly when committed by a veteran (but punished too in novices) -- I still don't think it's the worst of them. [Note: I've banged this drum before...] Fabricating sources or even whole stories and making up quotes, to me, is much worse than taking credit for true info and legitimate quotes. At least with the latter stuff, the audience isn't being harmed.

Some journalist is having his/her work pilfered and another is falsely building reputation and stealing employer money by not actually working to produce copy, but that's internal stuff. Phonying up a story strikes me as a greater crime than slapping one's name on part or all of a story that at least serves the readers.

Zakaria's wrist slap is a ridiculously light penalty. Given his prominence, he should be on the bricks. But I could see suspensions for plagiarism (for some first offenders, anyway) vs. firings for fabrications.

 

If you're a star, you can get away with murder.

 

I always felt the "disclaimer" at the bottom was insufficient. Each item should have been credited to the paper that produced the content, even if the "notes columnist" had permission to use it.

Half the crap in those notes columns was just taken from other people anyway, without permission.

Hated national notes networks. Really borderline ethics.

But I'm off-topic and I apologize.

 

www.nytimes.com/2012/08/20/business/media/scandal-threatens-fareed-zakarias-image-as-media-star.html?_r=1&hp



The mistake, he said, occurred when he confused the notes he had taken about Ms. Lepore’s article — he said he often writes his research in longhand — with notes taken from “Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America,” by Adam Winkler (W.W. Norton, 2011), a copy of which was on his desk at his CNN office.

 

Also, Carr:

www.nytimes.com/2012/08/20/business/media/journalists-plagiarism-jonah-lehrer-fareed-zakaria.html?src=dayp